CSPI: There are legitimate concerns about GMOs, but not around food safety, and labeling would be misleading

Gregory Jaffe: The question we should be asking is not is it genetically engineered, but is it safe to eat, is it introducing new allergens into the food supply, and how is it going to affect the environment?

Related tags:
GMOs, GM crops, Monsanto, CSPI

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has made a name for itself by tackling the food industry’s big guns on everything from artery-furring entrees to misleading label claims. But where does it stand on genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?

First of all, why are people suspicious of GM crops, and should they be?

I’d say most Americans are not aware of the issues around GM crops nor do they necessarily have any concerns.

What a lot of people don’t realize is that in ‘conventional’ farming, scientists have been manipulating crop varieties for years to develop new traits - maybe not by introducing new DNA from different organisms - but by inducing DNA mutations via chemicals or blasting plant cells with x-rays and gamma radiation.

And these ‘conventional’ crops do not go through a pre-market approval process, and could potentially present risks just as GM crops might, so everything has to be viewed on a case-by-case basis.

The question we should be asking is not is it genetically engineered, but is it safe to eat, is it introducing new allergens into the food supply, and how is it going to affect the environment?

Are there benefits to GM crops?

Yes, but you can’t generalize, because it all depends on how and where they are used.

For Bt corn or cotton crops [which engineer their own insecticide because they contain genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis], the key benefit is eliminating the need to use chemical pesticides.

For farmers with very small plots, this means greater yields, lower costs, fewer illnesses from pesticide use, and higher income, with reduced harm to insects, birds, and other species. But for other farmers, the key benefit is reduced chemical pesticide use.

For herbicide resistant crops, which contain genes that allow certain herbicides [such as Monsanto’s glyphosate ‘Roundup’ product] to be applied to the crop without harming it, the key benefit is reducing the effort needed to battle weeds. For soy, there can also be benefits around reduced soil tillage.

There are also varieties of squash and papaya that are resistant to certain plant viruses.

Gregory Jaffe: You could argue for example that non-GMO label claims are misleading, since they falsely imply that food made without GE ingredients is safer or superior in some other way

Other traits such as drought resistance and oilseeds with [the long chain omega-3 fatty acid] DHA, golden rice and so on are not yet commercialized.

What about the risks? First of all, is there a food safety issue here?

There is no reliable evidence that ingredients made from current GE crops pose any health risk whatsoever.

Other information about current GE proteins also suggests they are unlikely to cause harm. For example, the bacterial protein added to herbicide-tolerant soybeans is similar to a protein already in soybean plants, while the Bt protein in plants comes from a bacterium used by organic food growers for years.

It’s also worth pointing out that the process of producing corn oil, sugar, or HFCS from the crop eliminates virtually all of the transgene and its protein product, so our diets actually expose us to very little of the engineered gene or their protein products [eg. PCR testing of many ingredients from GM crops such as caramel color shows them to be GM-free].

The food-safety tests conducted by GE seed producers and others (but few independent scientists) have not found any evidence of harm, including allergic reactions. Those tests have included short-term, high-dose animal feeding studies of the GE protein (such as the Bt toxins and proteins that confer resistance to herbicides) and determining whether and how quickly the GE protein is broken down in the stomach (which prevents exposure to the rest of the body).

Tests also check the levels of a number of naturally occurring plant components (including nutrients) to make sure they have not been changed in the GE crop. While some of the tests have not used the best available methods, the combined results indicate that current GE crops are safe.

GE crops have been consumed by Americans since 1996 with no apparent ill effects. However, since there is no monitoring of GE food consumption, some adverse effects, such as food allergies, could go undetected.

What about risks to the environment, ‘super weeds’ and resistant pests?

Gregory Jaffe: 'Consumers should know how their food is made and where it comes from. But as this is not a food safety or a nutritional issue - it’s not like allergens or trans fats - we don’t feel it should be mandated on labels that foods are produced with GM crops. '

Certain farming practices utilizing GM crops are not sustainable.

The biggest challenge is glyphosate-resistant weeds developing, which means farmers have to use other chemicals to deal with these weeds.

It’s a consequence of over-use, although it’s not specific to GM crops; there have been numerous documented examples of weeds and insects becoming resistant to ‘conventional’ chemical pesticides and herbicides.

For insects that are killed by eating Bt corn or cotton, I’m not aware that any major resistant strains have developed yet. However, this could be a problem in future because a large percentage of farmers are not complying with government refuge requirements, which require them to plant a portion of their farm for non-Bt varieties to act as a refuge.

The biotech-seed industry is also developing Bt corn varieties with multiple genes that attack the same pest, which should reduce the likelihood of developing resistant insects, but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could improve its oversight or the technology’s effectiveness for future generations could be limited.

Is the regulatory system governing GM crops adequate?

Before any GE crop is turned into food, we believe that the FDA should have to formally approve that it is safe for human and animal consumption.

Currently, there is a voluntary notification process, in which the developer of a GE crop submits data that shows it is substantially equivalent to its traditionally bred counterpart and does not pose any new health risk.

FDA reviews the data and raises concerns. However, the process is not as rigorous as it should be, and the FDA often does not get all of the data it needs to perform a fully informed safety review [click here
to read the CSPI’s report, 'Holes in the biotech safety net'].

As for the environment, if a crop has been engineered to make its own pesticide, the EPA performs a risk assessment and assesses the safety to humans and animals if they eat the pesticidal compound and establishes a safe tolerance level.

We think that the EPA does a reasonably good job, although there are areas that need improvement. But at least the process is transparent and the public has an opportunity to provide comments before each major decision.

However, USDA’s environmental assessments of engineered crops are not as thorough.

Should foods produced with ingredients from genetically engineered crops be labeled as such?

Many ingredients that might be manufactured from GM crops, such as selected caramel colors from corn syrup, do not contain any GM material in the final product, so are technically GM-free, even though they can't be labeled as non-GMO

Consumers should know how their food is made and where it comes from. But as this is not a food safety or a nutritional issue - it’s not like allergens or trans fats - we don’t feel it should be mandated on labels that foods are produced with GM crops.

At CSPI we are very concerned about transparency and the fact that foods are made with GM crops certainly shouldn’t be hidden from consumers, but we’re also concerned about misleading labeling.

You could argue for example that non-GMO label claims are misleading, since they falsely imply that food made without GE ingredients is safer or superior in some other way.

Meanwhile, as I said earlier, the majority of foods that contain highly purified oils, corn sugars and cornstarch ingredients made from GE crops contain essentially no genetically modified DNA or protein [so you’d be putting a GMO label on something that is technically GM-free].

This whole debate we’re having now should serve as a wake-up call to industry to make itself much more available to people to talk about this issue.

FoodNavigator-USA will be interviewing some leading figures in the pro- and anti-GMO camps at the IFT show on camera in Chicago later this month, so stay tuned...

For a much more detailed look at the CSPI's position on biotech crops and GM animals, click here.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has made a name for itself by tackling the food industry’s big guns on everything from artery-furring entrees to misleading label claims. But where does it stand on genetically modified organisms (GMOs)?

18 comments(Comments are now closed)

Government Regulation and Industry Science do not Influence My Right To Know

I am happy the government agencies and industries and satisfied with their science on this issue. But this does not in any way influence my Right To Know. We are discussing food products and my health. I have a limited budget, and I often learn my trial and error what food products work best for my diet and body. I have the Right To Know what is in the products, ant the Company's are obligated to tell me. I want the same protections afforded to 64 other countries in the world. I do not want to have sub-standard food labeling - not in America!

Report abuse

Posted by LizE24 September 2013 | 01h292013-09-24T01:29:22Z

GMOs Present Clear and Present Health Risks

For an executive summary of a growing body of peer-reviewed, published scientific research demonstrating clear and present risks to human and animal health and the environment, visit http://www.compassnaturalmarketing.com/2013/05/20/research-documents-clear-health-and-environmental-risks-associated-with-gmos/.

I used to feel CSPI protected the consumer. But now, CSPI = Credibility Suspended Pending Investigation.

Report abuse

Posted by Steven Hoffman06 September 2013 | 22h072013-09-06T22:07:34Z

Follow the money...

CSPI has a rather close relationship with Monsanto.

CSPI has a nutrition advocacy coalition named the National Alliance for Nutrition & Activity. One of the steering committee members is the Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association).

Who funds the Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics? Monsanto, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (another Monsanto front), the National Dairy Council (another Monsanto front), Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, McDonald's, Wendy's, and Kellogg.

EVERY single listed funding source of the Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics donated to the "No On 37" campaign which helped to defeat Proposition 37.

CSPI is against GMO labeling because they are Monsanto shills.

Report abuse

Posted by DC25 August 2013 | 08h012013-08-25T08:01:32Z

Fails to hold water

The argument that GMO labeling might send inappropriate adverse vibes to consumers does not hold water.

As any first year marketing student knows, there is one claim sure to improve sales and that is "new and improved".

All the GMO industry has to do to spin positive vibes is to label any product "New and improved, made with superior GMO ingredients!".

But their paranoia precludes that. This leads me to believe they know some dark secret about GMOs they don't want anyone to learn.

If this is true then consumers have something to worry about GMOs. If it is not true then failure to enthusiastically label GMO products represents the biggest marketing blunder in history.

Report abuse

Posted by Stephen Albers20 July 2013 | 01h492013-07-20T01:49:09Z

CSPI's Views on GMOs Parrot Biotech Talking Points...Why?

I'm not swayed by one or two recent studies alone...but CPSI is tarnishing its previously superb pro-consumer reputation by defending GMOs. Read this executive summary of a well-documented report that debunks most pro-GMO myths:

http://www.earthopensource.org/index.php/executive-summary

Report abuse

Posted by lannit17 July 2013 | 04h292013-07-17T04:29:24Z

Civilized debate

We welcome all contributions to this debate but will not publish libelous or abusive comments, so please try to keep your comments constructive - and civil...

Not what the former CSPI Director of Biotechnology says...

Doug Gurian-Sherman (former science director for CSPI's biotechnology project, now a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists) responded to a 2005 position paper on the regulation of genetically engineered crops by saying, "CSPI’s assumption that these crops should take less time [for approval] is inconsistent with its own positions and CLEARLY MISUNDERSTANDS THE SCIENCE involved."

He goes on to say, "CSPI also fails to understand that new crops containing genes similar to those already commercialized can have additive risks. For example, glyphosate herbicide resistant crops are now giving rise to weeds resistant to the herbicide, which leads to the use of more harmful herbicides and more glyphosate, INCREASING RISKS TO PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT."

And let us not be confused about CSPI's ability to do a one-eighty when it comes to their opinion. In the 1980's and 90's they were key in advancing the use of trans-fats in foods to replace things like coconut oil, palm oil and animal fat. We know where that opinion took us, straight to the Cardiology Unit at the local Hospital.

Report abuse

Posted by Skai08 July 2013 | 22h262013-07-08T22:26:01Z

No Reliable Evidence

Regarding the quote: " There is no reliable evidence that ingredients made from current GE crops pose any health risk whatsoever."

There is no reliable evidence because research has been limited by the GE producers. AND, if there is NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE That they pose risk, THERE MUST BE NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DO NOT POST A RISK. Therefore, they should never have been released into nature or our food supply.

Regarding: "Other information about GE proteins also suggests they are unlikely to cause harm."

A SUGGESTION that they are "unlikely to cause harm," includes the possibility that they could. And, therefore should never have been released into the food supply.

Regarding: "The food safety tests conducted by GE producers and others (but few independent scientists) have not found any evidence of harm, including allergic reactions."

There, in fact, are two studies by independent researchers, "Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup tolerant genetically modified maize" by Gilles-Eric Seralini, which clearly shows mice fed with GMOs developed very large tumors. And,a just released study concludes, "Pigs fed GMOs have a "higher rate of severe stomach inflammation."

Though mouthpieces would like to point out this independent (independent of GMO producers) is junk science, to date it has not been discredited. If the GMO producers want to throw doubt into the conversation to create apathy on the public's part. I would like to suggest we throw it back. For certainly there should be EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION if ANY doubt exists when it comes to safety.

Certainly the science that creates these "crops used as ingredients" has surpassed our governments ethical responsibility for regulating them. In a free country, that is shameful.

Tell me, is it the FDAs responsibility to regulate or the EPAs. Are they food, or Pesticide?

Report abuse

Posted by Lori Horbas07 July 2013 | 01h412013-07-07T01:41:07Z

Rubbish!

This article is rubbish & lies! GE foods are not safe for everyone, many of us are getting sick from them and many, many more are sick and don't know why.
Cutting out GE foods has healed many from a growing rate of diseases. Allergies, Auto-Immune Diseases, Diabetes & Autism are rising at an alarming rate due to GE foods over industrilized so called food products, chemicals, pesticides & herbicides. And one of the worst is Bt Corn. Just what do think happens to this plant produced pesticide? It goes staight to work on our gut flora killing us slowly! You can go on eating it all you want- enjoy. But I was lucky to see what was happening to my health and opted out of the foods that kill machine. Now thanks to real food - grass fed & organic I have my life and my health back! Signed - grateful to be alive again!

Report abuse

Posted by Leona07 July 2013 | 01h302013-07-07T01:30:07Z

Benefits of GM Crops?

Myth 6.Organic can't help poor countries http://www.essex.ac.uk/ces/esu/occasionalpapers/SAFErepSUBHEADS.shtmhttp://www.ifad.org/evaluation/public_html/eksyst/doc/thematic/organic/asia.pdf
UN report Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa which states "Poverty is a major contributory factor to food security, organic farmers benefit from (i) cash savings, as organic farming precludes the need to purchase synthetic pesticides and fertilisers; (ii) extra incomes gained by selling the surplus produce(resulting from the change to organic); (iii) premium prices for certified organic produce, obtained primarily in Africa for export but also for domestic markets; and (iv) added value to organic products through processing activities. These findings are backed up by studies from Asia and Latin America that concluded that organic farming can reduce poverty in an environmentally friendly way." "Organic farming can lead to increased food production – in many cases a doubling of yields has been seen""the average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects: 116 per cent increase for all African projects and 128 per cent increase for the projects in East Africa" http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ditcted200715_en.pdf
"Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live- especially in unfavorable environments.""To date agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects." http://www.srfood.org/index.php/en/component/content/article/1174-report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food
The Economics of Certified Organic Farming in Tropical Africa: A Preliminary Assessment http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=eb06339b-2726-928e-0216-1b3f15392dd8&lng=en&id=30678
Janet Carpenter 2010 study, Impact of GM crops on biodiversity suggested out of 12 developed countries they had a 29% average yield increase using GM. Janet Carpenter is also a former lobbyist for National Center for Food Agriculture Policy who is funded by Monsanto, which shows a conflict of interest, making even those stats questionable. The studies I posted suggest organic had an average yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries. Also suggests developed countries had 6% increased yield. https://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/CarpenterGMC2-1.pdf
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4137E/y4137e05.htm#P3_9
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4137e/y4137e05.htm
http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/35861/1/IND43726576.pdf
*
Myth 7. GM crops will stop hunger and poverty
“The world currently produces enough food for everybody, but many people do not have access to it” http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/ “A UN investigator into food policy, Jean Ziegler, told the London-based Independent newspaper that he was "against the theory of the multinational corporations who say if you are against hunger you must be for genetically modified organisms".

"There is plenty of natural, normal, good food in the world to nourish the double of humanity," he says.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2459903.stm
"The first obstacle is the claim that genetically modified crops are necessary if we are to secure food production within the next decades. This claim has no scientific support, but is rather a reflection of corporate interests.""An objective review of current knowledge places GM crops far down the list of potential solutions in the coming decades." http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-013-0138-9

Report abuse

Posted by R Andrew Ohge07 July 2013 | 01h152013-07-07T01:15:45Z

Truth

This article reads like an ill informed person who hasn't bothered to do his research OR a person who is paid to let this garbage spew forth from his mouth. You, Mr. Jaffe, are part of the problem. Narrow minded and ignorant of the real world. We the people have a right to know what we put into our mouths so we can make intelligent choices in taking care of our bodies and maintaining our health. And so we can protect our children!!! We DEMAND a truth in labeling law! NOW!

Report abuse

Posted by CD fromKY06 July 2013 | 23h462013-07-06T23:46:17Z

How do you sleep at night?

With just a little REAL investigation one can see this article is meaningless . Just take a look at India to see the impact of GMO and growing these crops. Let alone eating them. GMO s are different than just making the stock higher. This oversimplification is an insult to anyone's intelligence. How do you sleep at night telling these lies??? Oh..yes the money honey. You are sad. PS Have you noticed other countries are locking out GMO's and refusing to buy US meat that is grown with GMO's?

Report abuse

Posted by sienna06 July 2013 | 22h372013-07-06T22:37:21Z

Who funded this bogus article??

It is quite obvious that this was funded completely by the companies who are profiting from GMOs, otherwise nothing in this article makes logical sense. I don't care who they interview, I will do all I can to avoid GMOs and fight to get Monsanto, Syngenta and all other evil corporations shut down!! If this is the official opinion of CSPI, I will have no faith whatsoever in any of the work they do from here on out.

Report abuse

Posted by Donna T06 July 2013 | 21h562013-07-06T21:56:13Z

GMOs and my 8 year old daughter

My daughter, Emily, gets violently ill when she eats GMOs. What specifically in them makes her so sick I do not know. But she can eat organically grown crops and she is fine. Her story is too long to enter here but you can read it at Facebook/momsagainstgmos. For her it is not about wanting to know what's in her food. It's about needing to know.

Report abuse

Posted by Patti Hayde06 July 2013 | 15h142013-07-06T15:14:11Z

GMOs: Myths & Truths/False Promises, Failed Technologies

No long term studies have proven safety. If food were labeled we would be able to tell if there were health consequences. Better still we don’t need GMOs. It’s a reckless and dangerous experiment imposed on nature and the public without our consent and clearly without our approval. The world doesn’t need corporate greed-motivated, monopolized, patented food cooked up by self-deluded, saviours-of-the-world psychopaths in biotech labs who have no concern or concept of the long-term consequences to the planet and humanity (or maybe they do? and that’s the agenda!). The following, for your information and readers of this post, if you allow this comment to remain ...

GMO Myths and Truths
An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops
http://earthopensource.org/files/pdfs/GMO_Myths_and_Truths/GMO_Myths_and_Truths_1.3a.pdf

The GMO Emperor Has No Clothes
A Global Citizens Report on the State of GMOs -
False Promises, Failed Technologies
251 pages
http://www.navdanya.org/attachments/Latest_Publications7.pdf

Report abuse

Posted by marge west04 July 2013 | 07h272013-07-04T07:27:52Z

Attorney Jaffee not an expert on public health

For issues related to public health, food safety, toxicology and ecology, I would not interview an attorney. Rather, I would want to interview someone with expertise in biology, and specifically endocrine disruption such as: Theo Colborn, (endocrine disruption exchange) or Warren Porter (biologist, U-WI). I interviewed both of the above scientists, as well as Michael Hansen, the brilliant senior scientist at Consumer's Union and heard valid concerns about the technology and long term public and environmental health. The issue of GMO safety goes way beyond the genetically engineered foods on our plates. The issue includes the increased amounts of herbicides used since GMO crops were introduced (Chuck Benbrook, Washington State U.) I think we let the public down when we ask non-public health experts to comment on public health issues. With all due respect, Mr. Jaffee is an attorney.
Listen to Hansen's interview here on Food Sleuth Radio: http://www.prx.org/pieces/87260-food-sleuth-radio-michael-hansen-interview

Mr. Jaffee, maybe this will enlightened you!

This is author/columnist, David Lawrence Dewey.

I cannot believe Mr. Jaffee's comment, "There is no reliable evidence that ingredients made from current GE crops post any health risk whatsover."

Mr. Jaffee I ask you this. Why would anyone intelligent person want to eat a GMO food, where if an insect
eats the food out in the field, the insects stomuch explode? This is what happens to insects that eat GMO food plants,the insects stomuchs explode ! This is FACT Mr. Jaffee !

I have been researching and writing about GMO foods and Monsanto for over 15 years. There are serious health effects from GMO foods Mr. Jaffee ! And Roundup is the most insidious toxin man
has ever invented !

Read my column Mr. Jaffee:

Genetically Modified Foods
The Documentary Monsanto
Does Not Want You To Watch
http://www.dldewey.com/monsanto.htm

And watch the documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VEZYQF9WlE

Hopefully the above and this will enlightened you and bring you out of the dark concerning GMO foods Mr. Jaffee !

A recent study conducted by Australian and U.S. researchers published, Tuesday June 12, 2013, in the Journal of Organic Systems, followed 168 pigs from weaning age to slaughter weight over the course of nearly 23 weeks. Half of those pigs (84) ate a diet based on GM corn and soy, while the other half ate as close as possible to the same diet based on conventionally grown, non-GM corn and soy.

Findings: 23 GM pigs had severely inflamed stomachs, while only 9 non-GM did. That much of a difference is a red flag deserving of further study, said Michael Hansen, Ph.D., senior scientist for Consumers Union.

In 2007, 2009, and 2011 Gilles-Eric Seralini published re-analysis studies that used data from Monsanto rat feeding experiments for three GM maize varieties (insect resistant MON 863 and MON 810, and the glyphosate resistance NK603). He concluded that they had actually caused liver, kidney, and heart damage in the rats.

What is disturrbing is these studies were later refuted by panel of toxicologists funded by Monsanto
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.fct.2007.08.033

and the French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee (HCB) who have links to
members on the Board of Directors of Monsanto.
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp9612a2

Posted by David Lawrence Dewey04 July 2013 | 00h182013-07-04T00:18:32Z

No evidence GMOs are safe

There's actually no reliable evidence that GMOs are safe for human beings. No one is allowed to do research on the seeds except for Monsanto. And their "safety" studies all ended at just three months. There have been NO long term studies on the safety of GMO products.